On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 17:34:50 +0100, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: >On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, at 16:57, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 15:45:53 +0100, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > >> >The deficiency of EXec is that it does not use the standard load module >> >search sequence for the member name. Someone should submit an RFE >> >for support of >> > EXec *(blah) >> >to use the standard exec search sequence for the member name similar >> >to what was do[n]e for CALL within my memory: ... > >I don't see how you half-defend writing rubbish like > Ouch!
>"The deficiency of EXec is that it does not use the standard load module >search sequence" > >by saying it's ok because you followed it with another vague (load-module >related) statement about CALL. > Picky, picky. >I know my knowledge is long out of date, but doesn't EXEC already search >either SYSPROC or also SYSEXEC depending on the setting of > >EXECUTIL SEARCHDD(YES) > >or does that only affect implicit (ie %thing) calls? > Implicit. Still need enhancement for EXec: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.4.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r4.ikjc500/ikj2l2_EXECUTIL_command_operands.htm SEARCHDD(YES | NO) specifies whether the system exec library (the default is SYSEXEC) should be searched when execs are implicitly invoked. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
